Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lines v. Ryan, 272 N.W.2d 896.

53 citing documents.

Doris Evanson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Indeed, a litigant is not normally entitled to remain silent when he believes the court has committed error, and then raise his objection only if the jury returns an unfavorable verdict.” n.8 (Minn. 1978); rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2023) (citing Lines for this proposition).
Jay Maurice, as Trustee for the next-of-kin of Jon Maurice, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A party’s negligence should be submitted to the jury “[i]f there is evidence of conduct which, if believed by the jury, would constitute negligence or fault on the part of the person inquired about.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).
Christopher Abdul-Haqq, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
n.8 (Minn. 1978) 12 (stating that Minn. R. Civ.
Sandra D’Antonio, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-03 (Minn. 1978) (quotation omitted).
Cory L. Hendricksen, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Ashton Hendricksen, decedent, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[I]n allotting negl igence, ‘a jury must have the opportunity to consider the negligence of all parties to the transaction, whether or not they [are] parties to the lawsuit.’” Radel v. Bloom Lake Farms , (d 896, 902-03 (Minn. 1978)), review denied (Minn. Oct.
A17-2040 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
orm as an entity to whom the jury could allocate fault.” When apportioning negligence, a jury must have “the opportunity to consider the negligence of all parties to the transaction, whether or not they be parties to the lawsuit and whether or not they can be liable to the plaintiff or to the other tort -feasors either by 14 operation of law or because of a prior release.” -03 (Minn. 1978) (quotation omitted).
Mark Kedrowski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Lines v. Ryan , (holding that evidentiary ruling is within sound discretion of district court and that appellate court will not reverse except for clear abuse of discretion).
Jovani Nassar v. Fady Chamoun Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jovani Nassar v. Fady Chamoun Minn. Ct. App. 2014
the fault or negligence of that party should be submitted to the jury.” (quotation omitted).
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Historic Ivy Tower, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Historic Ivy Tower, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Parties need not specially plead “specific acts of negligence,” n.3 (Minn. 1978), and “the word ‘negligently’ .
Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC 844 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC 844 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Kelly v. Ellefson 712 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 2006
Kelly v. Ellefson 712 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 2006
Braith v. Fischer 632 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Braith v. Fischer 632 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Radel v. Bloom Lake Farms 553 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Radel v. Bloom Lake Farms 553 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
But in allotting negligence, “a jury must have the opportunity to consider the negligence of all parties to the transaction, whether or not they [are] parties to the lawsuit.” -03 (Minn.1978) (quoting Connar v. West Shore Equip.
Schendel v. Hennepin County Medical Center 484 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Schendel v. Hennepin County Medical Center 484 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
McKay's Family Dodge v. Hardrives, Inc. 480 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
McKay's Family Dodge v. Hardrives, Inc. 480 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Computer Tool & Engineering, Inc. v. Northern States Power Co. 453 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Computer Tool & Engineering, Inc. v. Northern States Power Co. 453 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Sparta Sportsfabrikk v. NorTur, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 128 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sparta Sportsfabrikk v. NorTur, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 128 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Krein v. Raudabough 406 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Krein v. Raudabough 406 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hosley v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. 401 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hosley v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. 401 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
" *[W]hen apportioning negligence, a jury must have the opportunity to consider the negligence of all parties to the transaction, whether or not they be parties to the lawsuit and whether or not they can be liable to the plaintiff * * * because of a prior release.’ ’’ -03 (Minn.1978) (quoting with approval Connar v. West Shore Equipment of Milwaukee, 68 Wis.2d 42, 44 , ).
Steinbrecher v. McLeod Cooperative Power Ass'n 392 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Steinbrecher v. McLeod Cooperative Power Ass'n 392 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the supreme court said: It is established without doubt that, when apportioning negligence, a jury must have the opportunity to consider the negligence of all parties to the transaction, whether or not they be parties to the lawsuit and whether or not they can be liable to the plaintiff or to the other to
Ripka v. Mehus 390 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ripka v. Mehus 390 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the court quoted more extensively from the Connar case, which the court relied on in Frey : “ * * * It is established without doubt that, when apportioning negligence, a jury must have the opportunity to consider the negligence of all parties to the transaction, whether or not they be parties to the lawsu
Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co. 383 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1986
Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co. 383 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1986
however, solves any problems that may result from a broader reading of the word “parties” in the reallocation statute.
Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Medical Inc. 382 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Medical Inc. 382 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
403; In re Commodore Hotel Fire & Explosion Cases, , *209 249 (Minn.1982)
Larson v. Anderson, Taunton & Walsh, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 615 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Larson v. Anderson, Taunton & Walsh, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 615 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
McGuire v. C. & L. Restaurant, Inc. (citations omitted), (citations omitted).
Quill v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Quill v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
McGuire v. C & L RESTAURANT INC. 346 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
McGuire v. C & L RESTAURANT INC. 346 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co. 335 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1983
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co. 335 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1983
(trial court allowed portions of a party’s pretrial statement to be read to the jury, but, to avoid prejudice, the document itself was not admitted into evidence).
Cambern v. Sioux Tools, Inc. 323 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1982
Cambern v. Sioux Tools, Inc. 323 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1982
Jones v. Fisher 309 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1981